Jump to content
linda60639

BB17 General Discussion (non-houseguest-specific) - Part 2

Recommended Posts

why do you have to accept that? Her social game is a zero. Unless she plays flawlessly at comps and mentally, i wouldn't respect that and neither will this jury. She cannot win. Someone mentioned Russell Hanz earlier.

When you compare Vanessa's resume with the other players, what do they have to offer to counter what she did? Even though a voter may not like Vanessa or her game, her accomplishments are becoming overwhelming. She has been HOH or POV holder for around half the game. She has been instrumental in almost every major move in the game. Everytime Steve or Jmac had a chance to really make a difference in the game, they shied away. I really don't want her to win, but when I remove personal feelings from the equation, the rest of them do not deserve to win, if she makes it to the f2.

 

I was the one who spoke of Russell. That was before the other 3 allowed her to win the veto.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great call on the Russell Hanz.

My point is there is so little difference in comp total. Hoh veto and Bob totals are, as best I can remember

Van 7 wins

Steve 6 wins

Jmac 6 wins

Liz 5 wins

Even if this is not 100% correct, my point is that comp wins are close in total. I agree that Vanessa is the run away winner of the mental aspect of the game. But she cancels that out with being the run away loser at the social aspect of the game.

I just fail to see why most every year we are told that this is the type, the game winner should be. The most complete I think other three players have each played a more rounded game.

As the show starts I admit I am happy that I am not 100% sure who is going home for the first time this year. Mostly sure but...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think at this point in every season, about everyone starts giving their opinion of who should win. I am just giving my opinion. You have your own. 

 

Right now, I feel like if either steve or liz win the final hoh and send vanessa packing, they can win the game. If vanessa wins the final hoh, I believe she definitely deserves to win the game. She's basically been in control of the game for the last month. In a way, her social game sucks, but on the other hand, I have to respect her ability to get people to do what she wants them to do. She is a master manipulator. As to the others, personally, I don't care for the people who are good at socializing but doesn't make any serious game moves. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its good.

It is just my desire to have things less predictable. This season has been far and away the most predictable season. Exception to Jason blindside, you could know evictee every time just by watching CBS.

More of a scripted season with some reality thrown in as filler. No winners here only one non loser. As the ratings have sagged, the viewer is the biggest loser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am watching part one of the Final comps. It has been about 35 minutes. All 3 sitting on an apple thing and banging against a wall. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't be the only one  that noticed that one of the questions in the last veto competition was clearly a set up for Liz and Vampire-nessa to answer in a split second. "That was," What day did Frankie come."

How blatantly obvious! they might as well have asked", "What day did you two gals get all dolled up to go out of the house (PRISON) for a night on the town as VIPs at a gala Pop concert at the Staples Center!!!. Gee, do you think there might be a chance that the girls might be able to remember that day? About a week ago Huh?

I CRY FOUL!!!!!!!!!!@

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's no secret that I dislike Vanessa so much and today I dislike her even more than yesterday.  I just want to weigh in on a few Vanessa things.  I agree if she makes it to the end she would deserve to win but with that being said there were many elements to her game.  She likes to claim she was alone but she was not alone in the game she always had an alliance with her whether it was Clay and Shelly or Austin and the twins or Steve and Johnny Mac.  She was good at covering her bases so she was not alone.  She loved to play the poor me blah blah blah I am so loyal and I never lie.  She wanted to kick Austin out early because he lied to her.  She lied everyday to people, was not loyal ask Austin or Clay and Shelli for that matter. She interogated people like they commited a crime asked for everything from them except maybe their first born child and then was shocked when people had an issue with her.  These idiots that were dumb enough not to get her out (James and Meg and Jackie) you deserve to be in the jury house in my opinion.  I think Steve or Liz could give good enough reasons to win the game also because they have all been aligned with her forever. They could make the same claims that she will make about evicting them all and they could say they were just as much a part of it as she was.  They would not be lying.  She loved to have her HOH deals and meetings. She was up their butts everytime one of them would win.  I am just saying she could lose to Liz or Steve if they make a strong enough argument.  Liz and Steve are more likeable. My problem with Vanessa was not that she lied and was not loyal my problem was the way she would throw it in their faces that she never lied and that she was a good person if you are going to go into a game like big brother and play like Vanessa did then own it and don't act like you were a saint on a reality show for 500,000 dollars when you were not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was really glad to see that Steve actually wanted to evict Vanessa! Even though it didn't happen, I was glad he was actually going to go through with it! I think Liz will take her to finale but not so sure about Steve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think at this point in every season, about everyone starts giving their opinion of who should win. I am just giving my opinion. You have your own. 

 

Right now, I feel like if either steve or liz win the final hoh and send vanessa packing, they can win the game. If vanessa wins the final hoh, I believe she definitely deserves to win the game. She's basically been in control of the game for the last month. In a way, her social game sucks, but on the other hand, I have to respect her ability to get people to do what she wants them to do. She is a master manipulator. As to the others, personally, I don't care for the people who are good at socializing but doesn't make any serious game moves. 

I could not agree with you more, joystiick.   

 

I don't understand how people can talk about Vanessa's lack of a good social game.  By social game do they mean the ability to make close friends in the house? Other than the showmances, no one else have pledged to be lifelong friends with anyone this season.  And even if they did, can we believe it?  This happens all the time in the BB house, but after a few years, most BB friendships and showmances tend to die.

 

Aren't you playing a good social game if you can convince others to do your bidding?  Vanessa does not hold a gun over anyone's head. She convinces people that it is in their best interest to do certain things.  They must have been in agreement because they did what she suggested.  Does anyone in the house love her like a sister? I don't know, but is all the hugging and crying fake? Or does Shelli and the twins really like Vanessa? Can anyone say for sure?

 

Is Vanessa really disliked more than Steve?  He doesn't seem to have made a lot of friends this season.  Other than Austin, Liz hasn't made a lot of friends, either. Are their social games really better than Vanessa's?   Vanessa has been able to convince the HG's to keep her safe.  She has only been on the block twice, while Liz has been there 3 times and Steve 4. Vanessa leads Steve and Liz in competition wins. And neither could hold a candle to Vanessa's power of persuasion when it comes to determining who goes up and who goes out. This game's winner, in my estimation, should not be determined by how many friends one has made in the house.

 

The winner should be determined by how well one played the game. This means to me:

1- how well one was able to avoid nomination

2- how well one was able to win competitions

3- how well one was able to convince or persuade others to vote the way one wants  

 

Because the main object of this game is to win. And in order to do so, one must do whatever it takes to stay in the house while following the rules. The last two remaining in the house should be judged on how well they met the above criteria. The one that did all three the BEST deserves to win, IMO.   It is a bitter juror who ignores the above and chooses not to vote for someone simply because that person pissed them off in some way. Unfortunately, that is common in this game.  But that does not make it right.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that jurors should base their votes on certain criteria.

Different jurors can have different criteria matter more to them.

And if they want to base their vote on who they like more, or who they dislike less, that is their prerogative, of course.

One of my favourite jurors ever was from the first season of Survivor.

(I think his name was Greg.)

And his only question to the finalists was "Pick a number from 1 to 10".

And he based his vote on that.

I thought that was brilliant.

While some said it showed a lack of respect for the finalists and the game itself, I thought it just showed that he didn't feel competent to judge because he had been out of the game too long, so he did what he thought was fair.

Ultimately, jurors can only be asked to vote for one or the other, even if they are given guidelines, the final choice (and how they arrive at it) is completely up to them, which is why bitter juries and bitter jury members are part of the game that should be considered by the houseguests when evicting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't be the only one  that noticed that one of the questions in the last veto competition was clearly a set up for Liz and Vampire-nessa to answer in a split second. "That was," What day did Frankie come."

How blatantly obvious! they might as well have asked", "What day did you two gals get all dolled up to go out of the house (PRISON) for a night on the town as VIPs at a gala Pop concert at the Staples Center!!!. Gee, do you think there might be a chance that the girls might be able to remember that day? About a week ago Huh?

I CRY FOUL!!!!!!!!!!@

I thought the same thing...and it came at a time when only JMac and Van were left, so it was clearly meant to give Van an edge in the comp.

Also, has anyone else had trouble trying to vote for America's favorite? I voted one day and could vote twenty times. Since then each time I try to cast a vote I am told that I have used all my votes for that day...and I hadn't voted once yet! The first day I split my votes for JMac and James because I really can't decide between the two. But apparently that isn't who CBS wants to give the money to!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you compare Vanessa's resume with the other players, what do they have to offer to counter what she did? Even though a voter may not like Vanessa or her game, her accomplishments are becoming overwhelming. She has been HOH or POV holder for around half the game. She has been instrumental in almost every major move in the game. Everytime Steve or Jmac had a chance to really make a difference in the game, they shied away. I really don't want her to win, but when I remove personal feelings from the equation, the rest of them do not deserve to win, if she makes it to the f2.

 

I was the one who spoke of Russell. That was before the other 3 allowed her to win the veto.  

 

I agree with you.

Great call on the Russell Hanz.

My point is there is so little difference in comp total. Hoh veto and Bob totals are, as best I can remember

Van 7 wins

Steve 6 wins

Jmac 6 wins

Liz 5 wins

Even if this is not 100% correct, my point is that comp wins are close in total. I agree that Vanessa is the run away winner of the mental aspect of the game. But she cancels that out with being the run away loser at the social aspect of the game.

I just fail to see why most every year we are told that this is the type, the game winner should be. The most complete I think other three players have each played a more rounded game.

As the show starts I admit I am happy that I am not 100% sure who is going home for the first time this year. Mostly sure but...

 

Why do comp totals make a difference when in every BB circle, Wil Kirby is supposed to be the best BB player in its history and he never won one comp?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that it's down to just 3. I want Steve to win the challenges and be the one to evict Vanessa, taking Liz to F2.   :)

I'd like to see this, as well. Just cannot even imagine the look on V's face if she is evicted. Unfortunately, I don't think this will happen. I fully expect V to win the final HOH. CBS has probably given her all the answer or whatever else she will need in the final comp, already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh hell no, they did it again.  They brought back that horse faced donkey  braying Rachel and the idiot that married her.   Too bad for the world that the petition to have that pair spayed and neutered failed.   Now they are reproducing and CBS has to wheel them out to make a public announcement.  GET THEM OFF MY TV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have pretty much the same thought on comp wins.   My thought is that to base a vote solely on comp wins is a lame metric that is used by the intellectually lazy.

 

If Derek had taken Victoria to the final two last season, I would have voted for her.   Sure she could no right as far as comps were concerned, but she did her job as pawn the entire season.  So we would have had the sly and conniving vs the obedient and dutiful.  Both would be at final two, so why would only comp wins be the primary criteria.

 

Many say that they would never vote for Meg.  I would.  She was a nice person to have in the house.  I would have given my vote to her had she not been culled like the weakling runt of the herd.

 

Steve played his part as the meek red-headed stepchild or the hired mule (you pick).   He took the abuse and condescension from them all.  They called him "boy" and berated him for wanting to cook a damned pork chop.  He did his duty as a loyal alliance member and suffered the abuse without complaint until the end when the time was right to revolt.  Then he lead the blood shed to final three.

 

JMac was this season's court jester, or at least that is how he presented himself.  Again, the arrogant narcissists discounted him and used him until very late into the season  (final five?).  Disarming goof ball?  Yes, but he was still kicking.

 

The slick and the vicious make for great TV, but why do they always have to be the only ones rewarded.   Many times, they are just not nice or likable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have pretty much the same thought on comp wins. My thought is that to base a vote solely on comp wins is a lame metric that is used by the intellectually lazy.

If Derek had taken Victoria to the final two last season, I would have voted for her. Sure she could no right as far as comps were concerned, but she did her job as pawn the entire season. So we would have had the sly and conniving vs the obedient and dutiful. Both would be at final two, so why would only comp wins be the primary criteria.

Many say that they would never vote for Meg. I would. She was a nice person to have in the house. I would have given my vote to her had she not been culled like the weakling runt of the herd.

Steve played his part as the meek red-headed stepchild or the hired mule (you pick). He took the abuse and condescension from them all. They called him "boy" and berated him for wanting to cook a damned pork chop. He did his duty as a loyal alliance member and suffered the abuse without complaint until the end when the time was right to revolt. Then he lead the blood shed to final three.

JMac was this season's court jester, or at least that is how he presented himself. Again, the arrogant narcissists discounted him and used him until very late into the season (final five?). Disarming goof ball? Yes, but he was still kicking.

The slick and the vicious make for great TV, but why do they always have to be the only ones rewarded. Many times, they are just not nice or likable.

That final paragraph sums up exactly how feel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that it's down to just 3. I want Steve to win the challenges and be the one to evict Vanessa, taking Liz to F2. :)

. Oh that would be epic !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have pretty much the same thought on comp wins.   My thought is that to base a vote solely on comp wins is a lame metric that is used by the intellectually lazy.

 

If Derek had taken Victoria to the final two last season, I would have voted for her.   Sure she could no right as far as comps were concerned, but she did her job as pawn the entire season.  So we would have had the sly and conniving vs the obedient and dutiful.  Both would be at final two, so why would only comp wins be the primary criteria.

 

Many say that they would never vote for Meg.  I would.  She was a nice person to have in the house.  I would have given my vote to her had she not been culled like the weakling runt of the herd.

 

Steve played his part as the meek red-headed stepchild or the hired mule (you pick).   He took the abuse and condescension from them all.  They called him "boy" and berated him for wanting to cook a damned pork chop.  He did his duty as a loyal alliance member and suffered the abuse without complaint until the end when the time was right to revolt.  Then he lead the blood shed to final three.

 

JMac was this season's court jester, or at least that is how he presented himself.  Again, the arrogant narcissists discounted him and used him until very late into the season  (final five?).  Disarming goof ball?  Yes, but he was still kicking.

 

The slick and the vicious make for great TV, but why do they always have to be the only ones rewarded.   Many times, they are just not nice or likable.

I don't think many people use just comp wins to make the final decision. However, comp wins does fill another square on the resume when someone is trying to decide who played the best game. Generally comp wins, especially HOH wins, puts a person in position to make decisions and have some control in the game. People without comp wins need to be able to explain or demonstrate how that made meaningful game moves that advanced their game and help shape the overall game.  If you take Meg and Victoria from last season and asked them to put together a resume of what they did to advance in the game, their combined resume would amount to one line. The only claim they would have is that they allowed someone else to take them as far as that person could or wanted to take them. They were simply space holders in the game. If you are not in position to make the decisions, then you need to be in a position to influence the decision. Although I don't like the game that Vanessa played (she just rubs me the wrong way), she has either been the person directly making the decision of who was evicted or she pretty much directed the supposed decision maker, on what their decision would be. When people were plotting to get her out, she found ways to shift the focus onto someone else. In my opinion, she has played head and shoulders above the rest.  If she is sitting there at the end, I just can't find a reason to vote for the other player.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think many people use just comp wins to make the final decision. However, comp wins does fill another square on the resume when someone is trying to decide who played the best game. Generally comp wins, especially HOH wins, puts a person in position to make decisions and have some control in the game. People without comp wins need to be able to explain or demonstrate how that made meaningful game moves that advanced their game and help shape the overall game.  If you take Meg and Victoria from last season and asked them to put together a resume of what they did to advance in the game, their combined resume would amount to one line. The only claim they would have is that they allowed someone else to take them as far as that person could or wanted to take them. They were simply space holders in the game. If you are not in position to make the decisions, then you need to be in a position to influence the decision. Although I don't like the game that Vanessa played (she just rubs me the wrong way), she has either been the person directly making the decision of who was evicted or she pretty much directed the supposed decision maker, on what their decision would be. When people were plotting to get her out, she found ways to shift the focus onto someone else. In my opinion, she has played head and shoulders above the rest.  If she is sitting there at the end, I just can't find a reason to vote for the other player.  

Very well said!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She makes a living bluffing and suckering in other players.

Any real tears she may have had... was when she thought she may have made a bad move.

The other HGs were out-classed from the beginning.

They knew what she was doing... and they still kept going back for more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could not agree with you more, joystiick.   

 

I don't understand how people can talk about Vanessa's lack of a good social game.  By social game do they mean the ability to make close friends in the house? Other than the showmances, no one else have pledged to be lifelong friends with anyone this season.  And even if they did, can we believe it?  This happens all the time in the BB house, but after a few years, most BB friendships and showmances tend to die.

 

Aren't you playing a good social game if you can convince others to do your bidding?  Vanessa does not hold a gun over anyone's head. She convinces people that it is in their best interest to do certain things.  They must have been in agreement because they did what she suggested.  Does anyone in the house love her like a sister? I don't know, but is all the hugging and crying fake? Or does Shelli and the twins really like Vanessa? Can anyone say for sure?

 

Is Vanessa really disliked more than Steve?  He doesn't seem to have made a lot of friends this season.  Other than Austin, Liz hasn't made a lot of friends, either. Are their social games really better than Vanessa's?   Vanessa has been able to convince the HG's to keep her safe.  She has only been on the block twice, while Liz has been there 3 times and Steve 4. Vanessa leads Steve and Liz in competition wins. And neither could hold a candle to Vanessa's power of persuasion when it comes to determining who goes up and who goes out. This game's winner, in my estimation, should not be determined by how many friends one has made in the house.

 

The winner should be determined by how well one played the game. This means to me:

1- how well one was able to avoid nomination

2- how well one was able to win competitions

3- how well one was able to convince or persuade others to vote the way one wants  

 

Because the main object of this game is to win. And in order to do so, one must do whatever it takes to stay in the house while following the rules. The last two remaining in the house should be judged on how well they met the above criteria. The one that did all three the BEST deserves to win, IMO.   It is a bitter juror who ignores the above and chooses not to vote for someone simply because that person pissed them off in some way. Unfortunately, that is common in this game.  But that does not make it right.

I could not have said it better! I agree completely. I'm endlessly baffled by folks (both houseguests and viewers) who lose sight of why the houseguests are all there... It's to win the game, not make friends. After all these years, we all know there is lying and manipulation; it's nice to have alliances but one can't lose sight of the objective and that is to win!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That had to be the worst BB episode ever aired! They couldn't have at least squeezed in the end of the 1st challenge??? They should have included part 2 as well!!! Was there a single thing original besides their stupid memory lane?? They could have at least shown diary rooms we haven't seen yet!  Barf Ugh Bah!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



×